Keplr cost 200k cosmostation cost 250k but citadel one being unreasonable for asking 100k… Sure guys.
So what if its 10% of the pool what are you going to use the other 90% for?
Keplr cost 200k cosmostation cost 250k but citadel one being unreasonable for asking 100k… Sure guys.
Keplr asked for funding before scrt was even listed or was promised to be listed and was something we vitally needed. Can’t really compare the 2.
Good to see you on the right topic pete.
Right now SCRT is very undervalued. So I am sure you would not sell off one of your 10 home units at 10% of the par market value during a low point. You would simply wait for the market to correct.
Again this is just one proposal so if each month an equally deserving project came forward then by the end of the year the fund is ZERO.
Finally if the other funds which control 97.5% of the available funds for these types of projects will Not chip in then either our system is broken or we have to question its value
In reality SCRT is at 2% of its BTC/SCRT price that it was when I first looked at Enigma & BOUGHT , which at the time had no real product.
If SCRT can Not get back to 20% of that BTC/SCRT price then we are all wasting our time & money because the broader community has told us SCRT is useless.
That is why Enigma & the Ecosystem funds need to be the leaders in these types of projects going forward. We just fill the gaps & will need every one of our SCRTs to just do that task.
Also worth mentioning that we will integrate those features that Keplr and Cosmostation integrated for 200k and 250k using citadel.one team own funds. We only ask funding for the developments that have not been proposed or integrated by any of the teams yet + web version of those features as a bonus on our team’s behalf.
You cant compare your proposal to keplr, they asked before scrt was listed and were essential and cosmostation didn’t get any funding. These are bad comparisons. Furthermore pretty much everything you are proposing already has an existing solution, other than mobile snip20 and mobile bridge stuff.
Agreed they’re terrible comparisons. Actually I believe no proposal should ever be compared to other proposals in terms of the amount of SCRT. That’s why it’s so vital each community spend proposal includes a detailed breakdown of costs.
I appreciate Citadel.One’s contributions and engagement in the ecosystem. I don’t necessarily have strong feelings one way or another on this particular proposal at the present time. I do agree with Ian on some of his points about the urgency of this proposal. I don’t foresee any users lining up to use mobile functionality for the bridge. I foresee mobile functionality being similar to that of a tipbot where smaller amounts will be passed amongst friends or for certain small payments.
For me…there are just other things that garner more attention at the present point in time. We have to concentrate on the bridge launch and the AMM launch and how to make those products successful. I don’t want to divert too much energy (actually any) this month debating Governance and proposals.
Those are completely different proposals as well. The comparison was made earlier in relation to the fact that what citadel.one is proposing is a completely different set of functionality, and those integrations that were made by cosmostation and Keplr, citadel.one will or already made without community funding.
As for the urgency, well, it also takes time to develop all this staff. All integrations will be finished after the launch of the bridge mining and amm.
Apart from the bridge there’s also a snip20 integration, too. The point of the proposal was to have all major secret developments gathered in one. Without having to use multiple sources (metamask, keplr, bridge website, cosmostation).
Not looking to destroy your Business , I am sure you have the best of intentions.
Your maths is wrong though as if the fund accepted each month a proposal like your then we would have nothing by the end of 12 months.( 900 plus 400 = 1300 , sorry 100 left on your figures )
Understand & appreciate the work you do for the Community both paid & Unpaid.
So thank you.
We have 98% of funds that should be used for the major projects not being used that way & 2% used for people like yourself for small yet important modification & fix ups that do not justify large proposal expense. ( so we can fund the validators like yourself & not see them become extinct )
We do have a topic to this ends so I will not continue to debate in the thread which is your proposal.
Again , Thank You for Your ongoing work Vlad but this is now not about the merits But Who should pay for it.
Do I get it right that you are calling this proposal a small modification? A proposal that will unite all major secret developments under one roof both on mobile and web?
Ok, I guess there is no point to continue the discussion further, as all the same arguments either start to come over again and again and we don’t want to continue defending ourselves from constant attacks from a few people saying that we are looters or what we propose is insignificant. That’s sad that we have faced such an attitude, which was quite unexpected, keeping in mind how our relatinship and onboarding started (pretty inspiring I’d say).
Thank you everyone for expressing your views and opinions, I guess there will be more feedback and well thought decisions made when the proposal goes on chain.
Citadel.one did not plan to work on those developments before we got requests from the community to add such compatibility to our mobile app. We already started the research and working on adding Secret Network token and staking to the mobile app. If the community needs the snip20, erc20 and secret bridge, I think this further should be decided by the community on-chain.
We still believe that having this set of functionality under one roof is an essential tool, whether in 2 months or in a year, so we still propose the full stack integration. We decided to fund 50% of the initial request (web+mobile) ourselves and propose 50% to community spend, which is 75 000 SCRT. If the proposal passes we will have the following integrations made both on web and mobile versions:
Add SNIP-20 tokens to Citadel.one
Create viewing key
Send SNIP-20 tokens, add memo, set transaction commission
View SNIP-20 transactions history
SCRT -> secretSCRT / secretSCRT -> SCRT converter
Add AAVE, SNX, MKR, LINK, TUSD, YFI, UNI, KNC, COMP, DAI, BAND and OCEAN to Citadel.one (+ make transactions, add memo, set transaction commission, view transactions history)
If the proposal doesn’t pass we will continue working only on Secret Network integration (make transactions, add memo, set transaction commission, view transaction history, staking) to Citadel.one mobile app using our own funds.
As I already mentioned, Secret Network integration and research have already started, so we don’t want to break up the developments, as we also have other projects on our roadmap scheduled for the future. Thus, the on-chain proposal will be released today or tomorrow which should leave enough time to think over and make a decision before the bridge mining incentive starts.
This is major works so as such should be Funded by those who hold 98% of the funds for improvement works
I see the proposal is on chain.
Citadel.one covers 50% of the full request (150 000SCRT) with the team’s own funds. The amount requested from the community pool covers another 50%.
Payment will be made in three installments of the following schedule:
1/3 of the total amount upon the on-chain proposal passing.
1/3 of the total amount upon completion of milestone 4
1/3 of the total amount upon completion of milestone 7
I’m wondering who the custodian is for holding the funds till the milestones are done?
Who owns this address?
I will be voting yes but i do expect an answer to my above question @_iamVlad
Glad it resolved that way.
This is perhaps the address from which the proposal deposit was made. The recipient address is of Citadel.one Node. We are communicating with the foundation so that they control the process and release the funds upon the completion of those milestones.
I think 75k is a very fair amount for the community to contribute.
The tag “recommended” will be excluded from the Secret node list after the completion of milestone 4 (second payment).
The roadmap in weeks:
Interface design for ERC-20, SNIP-20, Secret Bridge - [Weeks 1-2]
Support for ERC-20 tokens [Weeks 1-4]
Support for SNIP-20 tokens: [Weeks 3-7]
SCRT -> secretSCRT / secretSCRT -> SCRT converter [Weeks 7-8]
Support for Secret Network ETH/ERC-20 bridge [Weeks 8-13]
6-7. Testing and debugging [Weeks 12-16]
Then the product is considered fully released.
Puzzle will change its vote to yes if citadel goes neutral day one upon proposal passing. Otherwise we will continue to coalition build working towards a no with veto result.
Sorry i didn’t have this condition in my previous comment. I was expecting this proposal to keep discussing on forums and not have to negotiate during voting period.
Ps thanks for lowering to a fair price
Much fairer if it was paid for by the funds that diluted my holdings by over 25%
I wanted to take a moment to pause and commend citadel.one for everything they have and can contribute to the Secret Network ecosystem. Things can get a little tense with governance, and I want to apologise for any criticism that has crossed the line. I truly believe that Citadel One can build what they set out to build - the best mobile app with scrt support on the app store. Ultimately, I just wanted this value creation to be fair and neutral since it’s publicly funded. I think it’s important to point out that citadel.one compromised by lowering to a fair price relative to total pool reserves after feedback. This type of flexibility with proposals is deeply appreciated, it proves that Citadel One truly has the communities voice and interest in mind. I believe the sustainability and long term empowerment of users on our network are directly tied to the pool and how it is managed. This type of compromise was important and noted! At the end of the day, the community pool is just that - a pool of funds the community gets tp allocate, and as validators it is our job to do our best to help further the network and accurately represent our delegators.
As we move forward in general I have the expectation that I will participate in governance with a better tone and respect for those who make proposal. I think dominating the conversation is not something I should do, but I will say that if there are no loud voices every time someone asks for money then the pool would pass anything regardless of standards, as we’ve seen happen before. I fully believe that the end vote will help us move forward. The protocol is in its earliest stages with governance and it is important to set healthy precedents. On another note, I want to apologise to Vlad and Neshtedle for anything I said that diminished the Citadel One brand - I appreciate your active contributions to the Secret Network community and am confident the sentiment is shared across the network that the developers, community contributors, and voices of Citadel One are appreciated.
I look forward to seeing the end results of the vote - regardless of what happens we can emerge a healthier community as we navigate the challenges of governance. There is even a chance still that this proposal could end less contentious, if the largest final concerns of network stakeholders are addressed.
The other part of the offchain discussion for this is happening in this channel. It can be hard to track but has vital information and opinions shared imho